(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단5049040

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단5049040

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee of the Plaintiff’s alleged loan agreement (hereinafter “A”), made a loan with the Defendant at the interest rate of 10 million won per annum, 25% per annum, 25% per annum, and 30 September 30, 2011 on the repayment date (hereinafter “the first loan”). ② On June 30, 2010, A made a loan with the Defendant at the interest rate of 9% per annum, 25% per annum, 25% per annum, and 30% on the repayment date as of June 30, 201 (hereinafter “the second loan”). The Defendant lost its interest due to delay in repayment of the principal and interest, and the Defendant sought payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan by asserting that there is a claim equivalent to the claim amount as of January 11, 2016.

If the agreement on the instant loan to return unjust enrichment is null and void, A shall deposit the instant loan in the account under the name of the defendant without any reason and have not been repaid so far, so the defendant is obligated to return the said money to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The Defendant alleged that the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement with A with regard to the instant loans Nos. 1 and 2 or received money. However, at around 2005 to 2006, the Defendant offered to C a certificate of personal seal impression and documents necessary for the loan under his/her name to obtain a loan on the face of the documents required for the loan, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, but did not receive a loan. A related person, such as C, used these documents, forged a loan-related document, such as a loan application and credit transaction agreement, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a loan Nos. 1 and 2 in this case.

The defendant's account under the name of the defendant was opened at will by the related parties, such as C, and used for embezzlement, which voluntarily withdrawn the cash under the name of the defendant, and the defendant did not withdraw and use the loan.

Judgment

The legal principle on loan claims is written.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.18 2014가단5328992

-대전지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가합105064

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.22 2018가단37633

-서울남부지방법원 2018.02.08 2016가단255112

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.27 2014가단36151